FLANAGAN J: On 11 November 2016, the applicant pleaded guilty to 21 offences. The most serious offence was count 1 on the indictment, trafficking in a dangerous drug. A number of the other counts related to the trafficking. Count 2 concerned the supply of a dangerous drug; count 3, producing a dangerous drug; and counts 5, 6 and 7 were each in relation to possessing a dangerous drug. Counts 12 and 13 concerned possessing relevant things and items for use in connection with the crime of producing a dangerous drug.

The applicant, in conducting his trafficking business, was sometimes paid in stolen goods. Counts 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28 all concerned the receipt by the applicant of tainted property. Count 8 to 11 concerned the applicant being in possession of dangerous drugs which were not the subject of the trafficking. Counts 14 and 15 were offences of being in possession of weapons, namely, a sawn-off shotgun and a Taser.

The applicant was sentenced on 23 March 2017. The sentence was complicated by the fact that all counts on the indictment had been committed by the applicant in breach of a suspended sentence imposed by the Southport Magistrates Court on 21 July 2011 and four suspended sentences imposed by the Queensland Supreme Court on 5 October 2012.

The commission of the offences for which the applicant was sentenced also constituted a breach of probation imposed on 5 October 2012. The offences for which suspended sentences were imposed in October 2012 included trafficking in dangerous drugs as well as possession of dangerous drugs and other drug-related offences.

The learned sentencing judge imposed a head sentence for the trafficking offence of 10 years which carried a declaration pursuant to s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 that the conviction be a conviction of a serious violent offence. For counts 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28, which all involved conduct relevant to the trafficking offence, convictions were recorded but the applicant was not further punished. For counts 8, 9, 10 and 11, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two months with convictions recorded. For counts 14 and 15, being the weapons offences, he was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three months with convictions recorded. A period of 444 days spent in pre-sentence custody was declared. For the breach of probation, his Honour found the breach proved and directed that no further action be taken with respect to it.

As to the suspended sentence imposed by the Southport Magistrates Court, his Honour ordered that the applicant serve the whole of the suspended imprisonment of four months. As to the suspended…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Strutt

Details

AGLC: R v Strutt [2017] QCA 195
Case: [2017] QCA 195
Decision Date: 6 SEPTEMBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trevor Geoffrey Strutt pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking and related offences, including trafficking in dangerous drugs, possessing dangerous drugs, and possessing weapons. The offences were committed while Strutt was in breach of suspended sentences and probation. Strutt was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for the most serious offence, with additional sentences for other counts and for breaching suspended sentences. Strutt sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Strutt argued that the sentence was disproportionate compared to sentences in other cases, but the Court found that such comparisons alone were not sufficient grounds for appeal. The Court noted that Strutt's extensive criminal history, the seriousness of his drug trafficking activities, and the need for personal deterrence justified the sentence imposed. The Court found no error in the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion. The Court concluded that the sentence reflected the totality of Strutt's criminal conduct and was within the appropriate range for similar offences. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Orders